Herculaneum
V.15. Casa del Bicentenario or House of the Bicentenary.

Excavated
1937-38.

This
house owes its modern name to the fact that its excavation was started in 1938,
which was two hundred years after the beginning of excavations in Herculaneum
in 1738. It occupies a wide area of the northern section of the insula. The
entrance at number 15 on the south side of Decumanus Maximus was in a privileged
position in respect to the public zone of the city, with another large house
(still unexcavated) on its northern side, nearly opposite.

While
bearing the signs of the transformations suffered over time, it has retained as
a whole the appearance of a stately residence of considerable proportions.

The window above the doorway (no.14
on the right of the photo) would have given light into a room in which the
waxed tablets of Calatoria Themis widow of C. Petronius Stephanus were found in
a carbonized wooden box.

The contents of the tablets were
still readable and recorded the process of “ingenuitas” (proof
of being born a freedwoman) of Petronia Iusta, a girl born of Petronia Vitalis,
a slave who was then freed by Petronius Stephanus.

Plaintiff - Calatoria Themis, widow of Petronius
Stephanus

Defendant - Petronia Iusta, daughter of Petronia
Vitalis

The case had been brought to contest whether Iusta’s mother had still been a slave or a freedwoman when
she gave birth.

Plaintiff’s grounds - that Iusta had been born while
Petronia Vitalis (Iusta’s mother) was still a slave,
and therefore Iusta was a slave.

Defendant’s grounds - that Iusta had been born after
the manumission of her mother, and therefore was also a freedwoman and entitled
to inherit her mother’s assets.

History of the case –

Around the year 62AD, a baby girl
named Petronia Iusta was born in the household of Petronius
Stephanus, the mother’s name was Vitalis, but the father’s name was unknown
or at least not recorded. Vitalis had been bought as a slave by Petronius. His
wife was known as Calatoria Themis, herself a freedwoman.

Eventually Vitalis became a
freedwoman, and as such assumed her master’s name and became Petronia Vitalis,
the child Petronia Iusta was brought up in the family home by Petronius
Stephanus and his wife Calatoria Themis, but definitely known to be
illegitimate and not their own child.

After a while Petronia Vitalis
decided to leave the household, as she and the wife Calatoria were not getting
on. As a freedwoman she was entitled to do this.

She worked hard, was comfortably
off and had made a good home for herself, but her master and his wife refused
to relinquish Iusta.

As the child had been brought up
like a daughter, she was regarded as an asset to the household.

Because of this, Petronia Vitalis
started a court-case against Petronius Stephanus, as she wanted her daughter
back.

This earlier court-case was
resolved by Iusta being returned to her mother providing that her mother made a
payment to Petronius Stephanus for all the food and costs that he had spent on the
child during her childhood and teenage years.

Petronia immediately made the
payment and Iusta was returned to her.

This would have been the end of the
matter but all too soon Petronia died, and so did Petronius Stephanus.

His widow then brought another
court-case to recover Iusta, as well as the considerable assets that she had
inherited from her mother.

The case was brought on the grounds
that Iusta had been born while Petronia Vitalis was still a slave, and
therefore Iusta was a slave.

As slaves had no property rights,
if Iusta was judged to be a slave, then all that she owned would have been
returned to her mistress.

The case was brought before the
local Herculaneum magistrates, who decided they lacked jurisdiction over the
matter, and the case would be transferred to Rome.

Even in Rome the case became bogged
down, until a new witness was called. He was Telesforus, who had served
Petronius for many years.

He said he had handled the
negotiations for the return of Iusta to her mother, and it was acknowledged then
that Iusta had been born after the manumission of her mother. He said the Roman court should now make the
same acknowledgement.

However, the Roman court were not
prepared to reach a hurried decision.

The depositions to Rome had begun
in AD 75 and AD 76, and it seems that by AD 79 when Vesuvius erupted and buried
the tablets, a decision had still not been taken and nothing further has been
found as to the outcome. Was Iusta declared free, or once again returned to
slavery?

Perhaps they were lucky enough to
be in Rome contesting their court-case in AD 79, or perhaps the tablets
belonged to someone found as a skeleton in the seafront boatsheds. We shall
never know.

See Deiss, Joseph Jey, 1968: Herculaneum, a city
returns to the sun. London, The History Book Shop, (p.71), who
mentioned 18 wax tablets.

See Cooley, A.E. and Cooley, M.G.
2014. Pompeii and Herculaneum; a sourcebook.
U.K. Abingdon, Routledge, 2nd ed.(p.215-218, G5-11 in which 18 writing tablets are mentioned found in a
chest).

Wallace-Hadrill wrote – “The story
has been told many times, but we still await the new edition by Giuseppe
Camodeca, which, to judge by his patient and skilful re-readings of so many
other documents, may put an entirely new complexion on the story”.